In Re Soriah B., 2010 ME 130

Soriah and Aurora B. were placed in foster care after a preliminary protection order (Aug. 2008) and a court-ordered psychological evaluation of the mother.
The Department petitioned to terminate the mother's parental rights in Sept. 2009; a four-day hearing occurred in Feb. 2010.
Evidence included a psychological evaluation report and a counselor's discharge summary written by testifying experts; mother objected to hearsay.
The district court admitted the reports 'subject to' the mother's objections; the court later terminated parental rights based on the mother's personality disorder and jeopardy to children.
The court found the mother may need DBT, but it was uncertain whether she could control emotions; termination was based on the mother's inability to protect and assume responsibility for the children.
On appeal, the mother challenged admissibility of the reports; the court affirmed, allowing the opinions to be considered under Rule 703 while excluding hearsay for truth.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the reports were admissible as expert opinions under Rule 703	Soriah's mother: reports contain inadmissible hearsay used to prove unfitness.	Department: reports admissible as expert opinions based on reasonably relied-upon data.	Yes; admissible only as expressions of the experts' opinions, with hearsay limited to not relied upon for truth.
Whether the psychological reports may be admitted under the business records exception	The reports are not business records; not made in the regular course of business.	The reports fall within business records due to routine clinical documentation.	No; not admissible under 803(6) because prepared for litigation, not regularly in the business record.
Whether child-protection statutes provide automatic admissibility for parent reports or require testimony	Statute allows written parent evaluation reports to be admitted without expert testimony.	Statute does not apply to parent reports; experts must testify.	Statutes do not provide automatic admissibility; testimony from treating professionals was required.

State v. Nelson, 2010 ME 40 (Me. 2010) (establishes foundation for business records analysis in this context)
State v. Tomah, 1999 ME 109 (Me. 1999) (forbids treating expert reports as business records when prepared for litigation)
State v. Marques, 2000 ME 43 (Me. 2000) (limits admissibility of hearsay in expert reports under Rule 703)
In re Natasha S., 2008 ME 54 (Me. 2008) (vacates judgments relying on nontestifying expert's hearsay)
State v. Stanton, 1998 ME 85 (Me. 1998) (permitted expert opinion based on combined data, some hearsay if relied upon)
Henriksen v. Cameron, 1993 Me 622 A.2d 1135 (Me. 1993) (caution in admitting written expert information to juries)